Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#127 Mar 22 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Can't you just ban this ******* idiot already?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#128 Mar 22 2012 at 5:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
I was asked to provide links which supported Zimmerman's side of the story. I did just that. I thought you guys wanted more information? Apparently, some of you don't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Mar 22 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
We know there was a fight, so having injuries isn't really a surprise. No one has ever claimed, to my knowledge, that Zimmerman just got out of his car and shot the kid. They got in a fight. There are two questions that need answering. One, who started it? And Two, was it covered under the stand your ground act? If Zimmerman was following the kid, there's a very good chance that he's not protected by the act regardless of who started the engagement. Even if the youngster engaged first, it was with someone who (confirmed by the 911 call), had been slowly following him for at least 4 minutes. That definitely sounds like self defense.

You're relying on this white top/red jacket distinction to prove that one is false, but they take place at different times. It was a cold, wet evening. Is there any chance that GASP, he could have put on his jacket by the time the cops arrived? The jacket he may well have not been wearing while in his car (I, for one, almost never wear a coat while driving if I can help it--the lowest setting of heat is generally sufficient for maintaining a comfortable temperature).

And that last article you linked says that the "sole" witness saw Zimmerman being pinned, but the police report lists multiple witnesses. It's also fully possible that, in the fight we know happened, Trayvon at some point had the upper hand. That obviously does not mean he had to be the aggressor, and we know he didn't keep the advantage.

Also, I have serious problems believing that he hit Zimmerman on the back of the head with a pipe, and all Zimmerman had was some minor bleeding.

[EDIT]

According to your links, Trayvon was about 6 ft, but 160 pounds. He may have been a football player, but not in the way you are trying to get us to imagine.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 7:43pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#130 Mar 22 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
We know there was a fight, so having injuries isn't really a surprise. No one has ever claimed, to my knowledge, that Zimmerman just got out of his car and shot the kid. They got in a fight.


Not that he just got out of his car and shot Martin, but Mary Cutcher (whose interview has been aired many times and is one of the prime sources being used to argue that Zimmerman should be charged with murder) absolutely has been claiming that there was no fight immediately prior to the shot being fired (and thus, he had no reason to shoot):

From this article

Quote:
This was not self-defense,” Cutcher said. “We heard no fighting, no wrestling, no punching. We heard a boy crying. As soon as the shot went off, it stopped, which tells me it was the child crying. If it had been Zimmerman crying, it wouldn’t have stopped. If you’re hurting, you’re hurting.”

She and her friend say they heard the sounds from a few steps away, where they were inside beside an open window. Seconds later, they dashed out to find a boy face down on the ground and a man standing over him, a foot on each side of the body on the ground, with his hands pinning the shooting victim down.

“I asked him, ‘What’s happening here? What’s going on?’ ” said Cutcher’s friend, Selma Mora Lamilla. “The third time, I was indignant, and he said, ‘just call the police.’ Then I saw him with his hands over his head in the universal sign of: ‘Oh man, I messed up.’ ”

The women, who were the first on the scene, said they saw Zimmerman pacing back and forth.

“I know what I heard. I heard a cry and a shot,” Mora said. “If there was a fight, it did not happen here where the boy was shot. I would have heard it, as this all happened right outside my open window.”

The women think there may well have been a physical altercation between the two, but it must have taken place in a different spot, where Zimmerman perhaps had a chance to compose himself and draw his weapon.


She's directly claiming that they got into an altercation, then Martin ran away, Zimmerman followed him, cornered him, and shot him in cold blood. Her account to the media is one of the reasons there's so much outrage about this. But her account is absolutely contradicted by several other witness accounts. I'll gladly link and quote them if you want, but it's really not that hard to find if you spend some time looking.


Quote:
There are two questions that need answering. One, who started it? And Two, was it covered under the stand your ground act?


I agree. But I don't think that drawing emotional responses from clearly incorrect accounts of events like from Cutcher help us make those determinations. Clearly, they were fighting right up to the moment the shot rang out. The 13 year old boy walking the dog said he saw one person on top of another with them fighting, then his dog got away from him, then he heard a shot. It couldn't have been that long a period of time. Martin's girlfriend said that she heard the two have a verbal exchange right before the call was disconnected (which she assumes was from Martin being pushed, but it could have occurred as a result of any sort of action). That call ended 1 minute before the shot was fired (confirmed by numerous 911 calls). By itself, you could argue that they had a physical fight, then Martin ran away, and Zimmerman chased and shot him, but what about other witnesses? There's a woman who said she saw someone with a white shirt on top of another person right before the shot was fired. Another man saw pretty much the exact same thing.

At the time the shot was fired, it's pretty clear that Zimmerman was in a physical conflict which met the criteria for self defense. The only possibly contravening issue is if he initiated the physical conflict. And for that, we have no witnesses (except Zimmerman himself).

Quote:
If Zimmerman was following the kid, there's a very good chance that he's not protected by the act regardless of who started the engagement.


I'm not sure that's correct. Are you suggesting that a homeowner in a gated community can't even approach someone else and ask them what they're doing? As long as Zimmerman didn't initiate the physical confrontation, he absolutely should be protected (stand your ground or not). He's got a right to walk wherever he wants within that complex (and so does Martin). Neither has a right to assault the other, of course. But simply approaching someone isn't a crime and isn't sufficient grounds for violent response.

Quote:
Even if the youngster engaged first, it was with someone who (confirmed by the 911 call), had been slowly following him for at least 4 minutes. That definitely sounds like self defense.


To attack someone because they're walking towards you? By that logic, Zimmerman could have shot him when he first saw the kid. You don't get to assault someone just because they're walking along a sidewalk. That rule applies in both directions. Also, according to Martin's girlfriend, Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing in the area, and Martin responded by asking why he was being followed. Then the line disconnected. Now, I'm certainly speculating here, but it would seem to me that one of the most reasonable questions to ask someone like Zimmerman in that case is "who are you" or "why are you asking me this". It's got to be something that someone on a watch patrol gets a lot, and his answer should have been something like "I'm the neighborhood watch captain". Now, we can assume that instead of giving this simple answer which he's probably given a hundred times when he approaches someone while on a patrol, he decided in this case to jump on Martin and attempt some form of citizen's arrest, but it seems to me that if he started by asking Martin what he was doing, he would continue with conversation as long as possible. Remember, he's already called the cops. He's got time on his side. He has no reason to escalate this into a physical confrontation. Since we know from the girlfriends story that he did initiate a conversation first, it just seems unlikely to switch tactics.

It seems far more likely that Martin panicked and attacked Zimmerman the second his back was turned (just as Zimmerman reported to police). Or something else happened which caused an escalation. I don't know what that was. You don't know what that was. But to assume that Zimmerman initiated it is speculation at best. And in the absence of evidence that he did anything other than he claimed he did, the law has to give him that benefit of the doubt.

Quote:
You're relying on this white top/red jacket distinction to prove that one is false, but they take place at different times. It was a cold, wet evening. Is there any chance that GASP, he could have put on his jacket by the time the cops arrived? The jacket he may well have not been wearing while in his car (I, for one, almost never wear a coat while driving if I can help it--the lowest setting of heat is generally sufficient for maintaining a comfortable temperature).


My understanding is that he got out of his car while on the phone with the police initially (you can hear the door chime, and then it sounds like he's walking in the audio) and it was a couple minutes later when he encountered Martin in the complex (while both were on foot), and when the conversation started, Martin's phone call ended, and a minute later a shot rang out. While I suppose it's possible that he could have run back to his car and gotten his red jacket and put it on, and technically the police report doesn't say that the grass stains were on his jacket (just on his back), that's also just speculation. We could speculate a whole bunch of possibilities.

I agree that this is an area that would be useful to clear up. Were the grass stains on the back of his jacket? There were several witnesses who saw him immediately after the shooting (including Cutcher). Did they report what he was wearing at the time? Also, given that so many witnesses were around after the shooting, is it really likely he went back to his car and put the jacket on? I'd think that would have been particularly suspicious, don't you?

Quote:
And that last article you linked says that the "sole" witness saw Zimmerman being pinned, but the police report lists multiple witnesses. It's also fully possible that, in the fight we know happened, Trayvon at some point had the upper hand. That obviously does not mean he had to be the aggressor, and we know he didn't keep the advantage.


I missed any reference to a "sole" witness. Where is that mentioned on the linked page?

And I agree that doesn't tell us anything about who started the physical altercation. But there is *zero* evidence anywhere to allow anyone to assume that it was Zimmerman. But the entire claim that this was an unjustified shooting rests on that assumption. This is why the police didn't charge him with a crime. There's simply no evidence that he committed one.

Quote:
Also, I have serious problems believing that he hit Zimmerman on the back of the head with a pipe, and all Zimmerman had was some minor bleeding.


I've been hit over the head with a tire iron hard enough to make me nearly black out (actually watched the floor tilt with no perception of being off balance, then watched it tilt back to level as I recovered). I did not have a scratch as a result though. Just a huge freaking bump on my head. It's absolutely possible to get hit over the head and not bleed from it (or only bleed a little bit). It depends where you are hit.


Quote:
According to your links, Trayvon was about 6 ft, but 160 pounds. He may have been a football player, but not in the way you are trying to get us to imagine.


He's also not the small helpless child that many others are making him out to be. Much of the claims that Trayvon must have been a helpless victim rest on the assumption that he was so much smaller and weaker than Zimmerman that he would never have decided to start a fight with him. Clearly, that's not necessarily the case though. It just seems like those assumptions are leading everything in this issue. If you assume Martin was the innocent victim, then a witness report of a man straddling another man and hitting him is assumed to be Zimmerman beating up Martin, and the cries for help are therefore assumed to be from Martin, and everything sure seems to be damning towards Zimmerman's actions.

But take away that initial assumption, and the whole story changes. And when you dig through enough of those eye witness statements, and you read the police report, it becomes increasingly obvious that the guy people saw on top beating the other guy was Martin. And it was Zimmerman who was crying out for help. And now that really damning situation you thought you saw at first evaporates (or it should anyway). And you're left, as you have correctly pointed out, asking one question: Who initiated the physical confrontation?


IMO, that's the only remaining issue here. If Zimmerman started the fight, then everything that follows is his responsibility, including the shooting of Martin. But if Martin started the fight, then everything Zimmerman did meets the criteria for self defense.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 5:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Mar 22 2012 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
I really don't care how the fight itself played out. All I need to hear is the call Zimmerman made to the police to know that he went against police instructions and turned himself into the threat.

I'd fight with all my heart to beat him up and get away, too, if a stranger trailed me the way Zimmerman trailed Martin, and then ran me down when I got nervous and tried to take evasive manoeuvres from this wildly creepy use of a non-cop/ambulance/fire car.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#132 Mar 22 2012 at 6:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I really don't care how the fight itself played out. All I need to hear is the call Zimmerman made to the police to know that he went against police instructions and turned himself into the threat.


At the risk of being overly pedantic, he did not go against police instructions. He was told he "didn't need to do that". He was not ordered not to. And frankly, the police have no authority to tell him not to follow Martin. It's his choice. Dispatchers are told to say that so as to cover them legally if something happens. Absence of such a statement can be interpreted as support for the action being taken by the civilian, and can result in lawsuits if anyone gets hurt.

Don't confuse a stock CYA statement by the police as an order he ignored. He's taking responsibility for his own actions, but he's also fully within his rights to follow Martin. There's nothing illegal about that Zimmerman was doing.

Quote:
I'd fight with all my heart to beat him up and get away, too, if a stranger trailed me the way Zimmerman trailed Martin, and then ran me down when I got nervous and tried to take evasive manoeuvres from this wildly creepy use of a non-cop/ambulance/fire car.


Then you'd be the one breaking the law. Martin has no more right to assault Zimmerman as Zimmerman has to assault Martin. What's interesting is the number of people who seem to think that Martin would be justified in attacking Zimmerman in response to Zimmerman merely following him, yet those same people also insist that Martin didn't start the fight. IMO, it seems far more likely that Martin, acting on exactly the sort of assumption you speak of, choose to jump Zimmerman when he got the chance without waiting to figure out *why* Zimmerman was following him, then that Zimmerman, who has no reason to escalate this into a physical fight, and who's apparent motivation is purely to keep Martin in sight until the police can arrive, would randomly decide to attack him.


Obviously, this doesn't prove anything either way. But if you believe that Martin was as freaked out as you stated above, then isn't it possible that he initiated the physical fight?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Mar 22 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
I'm with Ari there. If it's true that he was following the teen for 2-4 minutes, slowly creeping behind him in his car (headlights in dark, foggy conditions making him invisible), then there is absolutely no reason for the boy to Trayvon to have seen him as anything but a threat. I don't think initiating a fight would be the wise course of action, but I do think it would have been a justifiable response to being tailed. You should probably note that it's actually one of the more common ways hate crimes play out--it is, in every way, a threatening situation. Trayvon was scared--his girlfriend's testimony proves it. She was telling him to run from the guy, because she was terrified he'd be hurt.

And the 911 call proves that this is what happened. It also proves that Trayvon DID try to lose Zimmerman first, which was his attempt to disengage, but was caught again.

Which is precisely why just about everyone connected to the law in question has denounced Zimmerman as being protected under it. Regardless of if he actually aggressed, his actions could not fail to present himself as an aggressor. There is no legitimate reason to be followed for several minutes on end at walking speed by a vehicle.

And let's be fair--it was an act of aggression. Zimmerman's intent wasn't to attack the kid (probably), but it was absolutely to intimidate and control him.

[EDIT]
Quote:
Don't confuse a stock CYA statement by the police as an order he ignored. He's taking responsibility for his own actions, but he's also fully within his rights to follow Martin. There's nothing illegal about that Zimmerman was doing.


Actually, it can be construed as harassment in a variety of states.


Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 9:14pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#134 Mar 22 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,930 posts
gbaji wrote:
Martin has no more right to assault Zimmerman as Zimmerman has to assault Martin. What's interesting is the number of people who seem to think that Martin would be justified in attacking Zimmerman in response to Zimmerman merely following him, yet those same people also insist that Martin didn't start the fight. IMO, it seems far more likely that Martin, acting on exactly the sort of assumption you speak of, choose to jump Zimmerman when he got the chance without waiting to figure out *why* Zimmerman was following him, then that Zimmerman, who has no reason to escalate this into a physical fight, and who's apparent motivation is purely to keep Martin in sight until the police can arrive, would randomly decide to attack him.


Obviously, this doesn't prove anything either way. But if you believe that Martin was as freaked out as you stated above, then isn't it possible that he initiated the physical fight?


No, I think it's much more likely that Zimmerman initiated the assault by going from merely following to approaching, and Martin fought back, and was shot for doing so. I'm pretty sure the phone conversation with the girlfriend hints towards Zimmerman escalating it to physical contact.

Also, from what I have read, the boy wasn't in a place he shouldn't have been. It was his family's neighborhood.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 9:13pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#135 Mar 22 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
If you listen to the whole call as provided earlier in the tread, Zimmerman was not just told that he "didn't need to do that". The dispatcher tried at least twice to get Zimmerman to stop pursuing Martin, by asking him to park in a specific place, and then when Zimmerman refused to park and stop pursuit, the dispatcher tried to get him to go rendezvous with police at one of the entries to the community, which would, again, have stopped Zimmerman from pursuing Martin if he'd only complied.

Zimmerman clearly demonstrates within the first minute and a half of the call that he has presupposed Martin is a neighbourhood burglar, something that he also clearly didn't have enough evidence to conclude. The dispatcher takes the possiblility seriously, but he also wants police on the scene to handle the investigation of a teen on the street at night, and for Zimmerman to stay out of it.

Zimmerman refuses direction, continues pursuit in his car, talks to the teen from his car, continues pursuit in his car when Martin backs off, refuses more direction, leaves his car and runs the lone teen down on foot, while refusing more direction. Zimmerman's behaviour is clearly hostile and aggressive. I would say that his behaviour is hostile and aggressive to anyone that doesn't know Zimmerman's motivations, and doesn't know that Zimmerman is not a criminal himself. BUT the first part of the call makes it clear Zimmerman IS hostile and aggressive in his motivations. "These ***-holes always get away with it" indicate he's feeling frustrated and angry towards a presupposed burglar. He doesn't have justification to believe with any certainty that Martin is a burglar, but he's convinced in his mind that Martin is the neighbourhood burglar. Therefore his logic train is already compromised, and his motivations ARE hostile towards Martin.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#136 Mar 22 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,360 posts
Based purely on what's written in this thread, Zimmerman became the aggressor the moment he left his vehicle with the gun.

ALSO: I'd be very interested to see the report indicating distance and direction when the gun was fired. Nothing here says one way or another.
gbaji wrote:
He has no reason to escalate this into a physical confrontation.
Unless he's a racist ******* looking to tool up a black kid.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#137 Mar 22 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:

Then you'd be the one breaking the law. Martin has no more right to assault Zimmerman as Zimmerman has to assault Martin. What's interesting is the number of people who seem to think that Martin would be justified in attacking Zimmerman in response to Zimmerman merely following him, yet those same people also insist that Martin didn't start the fight. IMO, it seems far more likely that Martin, acting on exactly the sort of assumption you speak of, choose to jump Zimmerman when he got the chance without waiting to figure out *why* Zimmerman was following him, then that Zimmerman, who has no reason to escalate this into a physical fight, and who's apparent motivation is purely to keep Martin in sight until the police can arrive, would randomly decide to attack him.


Obviously, this doesn't prove anything either way. But if you believe that Martin was as freaked out as you stated above, then isn't it possible that he initiated the physical fight?
Wait, so tailing an unarmed person is "self-defense", but trying to fight off an armed person cornering you after you were already running from them is "assault?"

(Self-appointed) "Neighborhood watch captain" is just a nice way of saying "unhinged vigilante."
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#138 Mar 22 2012 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,930 posts
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Then you'd be the one breaking the law. Martin has no more right to assault Zimmerman as Zimmerman has to assault Martin. What's interesting is the number of people who seem to think that Martin would be justified in attacking Zimmerman in response to Zimmerman merely following him, yet those same people also insist that Martin didn't start the fight. IMO, it seems far more likely that Martin, acting on exactly the sort of assumption you speak of, choose to jump Zimmerman when he got the chance without waiting to figure out *why* Zimmerman was following him, then that Zimmerman, who has no reason to escalate this into a physical fight, and who's apparent motivation is purely to keep Martin in sight until the police can arrive, would randomly decide to attack him.


Obviously, this doesn't prove anything either way. But if you believe that Martin was as freaked out as you stated above, then isn't it possible that he initiated the physical fight?
Wait, so tailing an unarmed person is "self-defense", but trying to fight off an armed person cornering you after you were already running from them is "assault?"

(Self-appointed) "Neighborhood watch captain" is just a nice way of saying "unhinged vigilante."


Obviously. Cause one was a little punk, up to no good, starting to make trouble in the neighborhood.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#139 Mar 22 2012 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Then you'd be the one breaking the law. Martin has no more right to assault Zimmerman as Zimmerman has to assault Martin. What's interesting is the number of people who seem to think that Martin would be justified in attacking Zimmerman in response to Zimmerman merely following him, yet those same people also insist that Martin didn't start the fight. IMO, it seems far more likely that Martin, acting on exactly the sort of assumption you speak of, choose to jump Zimmerman when he got the chance without waiting to figure out *why* Zimmerman was following him, then that Zimmerman, who has no reason to escalate this into a physical fight, and who's apparent motivation is purely to keep Martin in sight until the police can arrive, would randomly decide to attack him.


Obviously, this doesn't prove anything either way. But if you believe that Martin was as freaked out as you stated above, then isn't it possible that he initiated the physical fight?
Wait, so tailing an unarmed person is "self-defense", but trying to fight off an armed person cornering you after you were already running from them is "assault?"

(Self-appointed) "Neighborhood watch captain" is just a nice way of saying "unhinged vigilante."


Obviously. Cause one was a little punk, up to no good, starting to make trouble in the neighborhood.


Now it's playing in my head, you bastid. Smiley: mad
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#140 Mar 22 2012 at 7:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm with Ari there. If it's true that he was following the teen for 2-4 minutes, slowly creeping behind him in his car (headlights in dark, foggy conditions making him invisible), then there is absolutely no reason for the boy to Trayvon to have seen him as anything but a threat.


Or, and I'm just spitballing here, a neighborhood watch person on patrol?

Quote:
I don't think initiating a fight would be the wise course of action, but I do think it would have been a justifiable response to being tailed.


You think initiating a fight is a justified response to someone merely following you? It's not btw. I have a legal right to follow anyone I want on any property I legally have access to anytime I want, for whatever reason I want. I don't even have to be a member of any sort of watch at all. And if someone decides to just jump me in response *they* are violating the law.

The correct response would have been for Martin to simply continue walking along the street. I'm not saying get into the car with the guy or anything, but we're talking about a car driving in a gated community. He shouldn't be too concerned that there are like gang bangers preparing a drive by or some creepy stalker dude coming after him. Most rational people might be a bit concerned, but wouldn't plan some sort of ambush, and certainly wouldn't run away.

Quote:
You should probably note that it's actually one of the more common ways hate crimes play out--it is, in every way, a threatening situation. Trayvon was scared--his girlfriend's testimony proves it. She was telling him to run from the guy, because she was terrified he'd be hurt.


First off, his girlfriend has never provided 'testimony". She's provided an unofficial account to a lawyer, who has related some parts of that to the media. That's not the same thing.

That aside, how he felt doesn't justify any sort of violent action on his part. His fear was irrational in this case. Had he simply allowed Zimmerman to approach him and question him, everything would have been sorted out right off the bat, and he'd have been home eating his skittles 5 minuter later. Instead, he allowed his own fears and imagination to get the best of him, ignored the most likely explanation for Zimmerman's behavior, leaped to god-knows-what assumption, and proceeded to escalate the whole thing into a life or death struggle.

His death was tragic and completely needless. But while I know that this is really hard for the emotional crowd to accept almost certainly his own fault. He overreacted to the situation.

Quote:
And the 911 call proves that this is what happened. It also proves that Trayvon DID try to lose Zimmerman first, which was his attempt to disengage, but was caught again.


Which doesn't mean anything. If you run away from me, and I run (sounded more like Zimmerman was walking briskly) around a corner and encounter you again, as long as I don't attack you, I haven't done anything wrong. You don't get to decide that since I *might* do something bad that you can do something to me first.

Everyone is making a big deal about Zimmerman pre-judging Martin, but Martin also pre-judged Zimmerman. And if that caused him to initiate the actual physical attack, then Zimmerman did act in self defense. Self defense doesn't require that I not walk near anyone else who might attack me.

Quote:
Which is precisely why just about everyone connected to the law in question has denounced Zimmerman as being protected under it. Regardless of if he actually aggressed, his actions could not fail to present himself as an aggressor. There is no legitimate reason to be followed for several minutes on end at walking speed by a vehicle.


There's no reason why someone can't do that though, is there? Is there an actual law saying that in a residential zone, you may not slow down and match speeds with a pedestrian in order to have a conversation with them? Is there a law saying that someone on a citizen patrol can't actually drive anywhere near someone they think is suspicious, or call the cops about it, or attempt to find out who the person is and why they're there? I must have missed the passage of that law.

Zimmerman had as much right to be there as Martin did. He had a right to approach Martin and engage him in conversation. Martin, of course, has a right to run away if he wants, and Zimmerman has a right to chase him. Up until the point where one of them actually attacks the other, neither has committed any offense.

Quote:
And let's be fair--it was an act of aggression. Zimmerman's intent wasn't to attack the kid (probably), but it was absolutely to intimidate and control him.


His intent initially was almost certainly to keep track of where Martin was until the police arrived. Assuming they did meet face to face at some point (as the girlfriends story claims), his intent was likely to determine who Martin was and almost certainly to identify himself as a member of the local watch. We obviously don't know exactly what happened, but I can't imagine any reason Zimmerman would have to do anything else.

That doesn't preclude him assaulting Martin, but we can't assume that happened just because it could have.

Quote:
Quote:
Don't confuse a stock CYA statement by the police as an order he ignored. He's taking responsibility for his own actions, but he's also fully within his rights to follow Martin. There's nothing illegal about that Zimmerman was doing.


Actually, it can be construed as harassment in a variety of states.


Only if he continues following and bothering him past the point at which any legitimate interest or concern has been resolved. Someone approaching a person they don't recognize in a gate community who appears to be acting suspicious to ask them what they are doing is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and absolutely is *not* harassment.

I guess my issue here is that both of their actions were fueled by not knowing who the other person was and what he was doing. But Martin responded to that lack of knowledge by ducking into side streets, and walking in different directions trying to "lose him", and then ultimately running when Zimmerman attempted to approach. Zimmerman acted as a normal person does. He approached in his car. He called the police just in case this person was dangerous. He attempted to approach him to question him, and the guy ran. He circled around and encountered him again.


Remember that he absolutely has a right to approach someone he thinks looks suspicious. Police recommendation aside, he has the right to do that. He's on common property. He's been authorized by the home owners association to do exactly this. This idea that he must not only refrain from physically engaging with someone, but must actively avoid even being within sight or speaking distance or risk justified assault is frankly absurd. None of you would think that Zimmerman would be justified to assault Martin just because he thought Martin was acting strangely, so why think that Martin would be justified to attack Zimmerman for the exact same reason?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Mar 22 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,930 posts
gbaji wrote:
How he felt doesn't justify any sort of violent action on his part. His fear was irrational in this case. Had he simply allowed ZimmermanMartin to approach him and question him walk home freely, everything would have been sorted out right off the bat, and he'd have been home eating his skittles 5 minuter later an innocent boy would not be dead. Instead, he allowed his own fears and imagination to get the best of him, ignored the most likely explanation for Zimmerman's Martin's behavior, leaped to god-knows-what assumption, and proceeded to escalate the whole thing into a life or death struggle murder.

His Martin's death was tragic and completely needless. But while I know that this is really hard for the emotional crowd to accept almost certainly his own Zimmerman's fault. He overreacted to the situation.



Ya, Martin's fault alright. That kid shouldn't have thought he could walk to a store and buy stuff.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 10:03pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#142 Mar 22 2012 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
Dispatchers are told to say that so as to cover them legally if something happens. Absence of such a statement can be interpreted as support for the action being taken by the civilian, and can result in lawsuits if anyone gets hurt.


Shockingly enough, they're also (or, actually) told to say that because civilians (Zimmerman) are not deemed capable of effectively handling matters such as the very one we're discussing.

But please, don't let the truth get in the way of your zeal. Ya fucking hypocrite.
#143 Mar 22 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Wait, so tailing an unarmed person is "self-defense", but trying to fight off an armed person cornering you after you were already running from them is "assault?"


No. Attacking someone who's done nothing more than follow you is "assault'. Protecting yourself from someone who attacked you (even if you were tailing them) is absolutely "self defense".

Jumping someone because "he was following me and I was scared" isn't a legitimate legal defense. Ever.


Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 7:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Mar 22 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Dispatchers are told to say that so as to cover them legally if something happens. Absence of such a statement can be interpreted as support for the action being taken by the civilian, and can result in lawsuits if anyone gets hurt.


Shockingly enough, they're also (or, actually) told to say that because civilians (Zimmerman) are not deemed capable of effectively handling matters such as the very one we're discussing.


It's kinda irrelevant what the police think a civilian can or can't handle in this case though. The police did not order Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Zimmerman had every right to follow Martin if he wanted to. Everything else really doesn't matter, does it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Mar 22 2012 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Dispatchers are told to say that so as to cover them legally if something happens. Absence of such a statement can be interpreted as support for the action being taken by the civilian, and can result in lawsuits if anyone gets hurt.


Shockingly enough, they're also (or, actually) told to say that because civilians (Zimmerman) are not deemed capable of effectively handling matters such as the very one we're discussing.


It's kinda irrelevant


And yet you went and said it anyway. I'd suggest that such deliberate misrepresentation undermines your credibility, but, well, you know the rest.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 10:19pm by Eske
#146 Mar 22 2012 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Wait, so tailing an unarmed person is "self-defense", but trying to fight off an armed person cornering you after you were already running from them is "assault?"


No. Attacking someone who's done nothing more than follow you is "assault'. Protecting yourself from someone who attacked you (even if you were tailing them) is absolutely "self defense".

Jumping someone because "he was following me and I was scared" isn't a legitimate legal defense. Ever.

"Following" is about the most dismissive way I would put it except for "coincidentally walking in the same direction." From the girlfriend:

Quote:

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”


There's pleading and begging on one of the 911 tapes. The wailing is mysteriously cut short after a gunshot.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#147 Mar 22 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, really. Gbaji blames rape victims for their rape, why wouldn't he blame the 17 year old negro kid walking home from the store with a soda & some skiddles for being shot by the neighborhood watch captain? I mean, it's obvious by his actions - ya know, getting shot & killed and all - that he must have deserved it.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#148 Mar 22 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,360 posts
In the past when garbaji prompted a string of invective from me I've avoided calling him racist because I wasn't entirely sure.

Now I am. Gratz, garbaji, you're even a worse person than I had imagined.

____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#149 Mar 23 2012 at 12:09 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Only if he continues following and bothering him past the point at which any legitimate interest or concern has been resolved. Someone approaching a person they don't recognize in a gate community who appears to be acting suspicious to ask them what they are doing is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and absolutely is *not* harassment.


And if all he did was approach, this would be a very different conversation. Slowly tailing someone while they walk home in the dark, with your headlights blaring, is a very, very different monster.

But Sweetums said it best.

And if you would get off your white male privilege horse for a second, maybe you could tune in to how most people would feel in that situation.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#150 Mar 23 2012 at 4:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
In a moment of levity, I'm having fun scanning the comments section of The Blaze article where Allen West came out fully in support of the investigation and a trial for Zimmerman.

Side with the left just once, and a Tea Party darling becomes a, as one commentator said, "like stays with like" race-baiter. Ah, extreme right-wingers...
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#151 Mar 23 2012 at 4:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,633 posts
Do you argue with him in hopes of changing his mind or just to people know that you can remain vigilant against his trolling? I will add that I think it's terrible that a young man died so needlessly.
____________________________
Mistress Darqflame wrote:
Sorry, anything representing or remotely resembling a ***** is a nono.
gigasnail wrote:
i'm lighting the freak signal here, sara help me out ~
Redding wrote:
Same ol' Sara now with 50% less hidden *****
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (48)